VCE texts to be screened for depictions of violence and swearing

[vox nihili]

Source: www.theage.com.au/victoria/is-this-a-censor-i-see-before-me-vce-texts-to-be-screened-for-violence-swearing-20170428-gvuvav.html


VCAA will now deliberately consider whether VCE texts are consistent with community standards on violence, swearing etc. It's expected that most texts on the text list will remain, but some will be removed.

Critics have argued that this is a form of censorship and, by extension, that it will negatively impact on students' experience of English/Literature in VCE.

There has also been discussion about including trigger warnings in VCE content as well.

So my question to all of you is: are these ideas reasonable?

[Quantum44]

The essence of fiction novels is the provocation of a vast array of emotions, not just those of the positive variety. Without any problem, how can the story have a resolution? Without realism, including confronting scenes of brutality, how can the novel make any comment on the nature of mankind? Without fundamentally flawed characters, how can there be any opportunity for critical analysis?

Just because sexual abuse, violence and drug addiction feature in a novel, it doesn't mean the author is condoning this behaviour. In a fair few novels, the author uses a vast array of characters to criticise, not normalise unacceptable behaviour and people need to learn how to make this distinction.

[Joseph41]

I think having trigger warnings is a sensible idea.

How does VCE English work (I never studied it)? Are students forced into studying particular texts? Because if so, I don't think that's hugely fair on them - for various reasons.

[heids]

Yeah, schools select four texts from the booklist and you're required to study those, and must write about 2-3 of those in the exam. My family, being fundamentalist, has occasionally rebelled against this and the school was able to let them off certain texts.

I agree with trigger warnings, because some books do deal with extremely challenging issues, but as long as it is dealt with sympathetically and healthily, rather than gratuitously or glorifying the issues, I think violence, child sexual abuse, suicide etc can be acceptable topics. They're topics that... need discussing? In a healthy way. Shying away from them doesn't help.

[Coffee]

Somehow I missed this post.

Anyway, I basically agree with Wagner in the article:

"It is not saying that we should censor texts, it is saying be thoughtful when we are selecting texts,"

I don't think texts should be ruled out on the basis of coarse language, violence, contentious issues, etc. But having some tact is the key here. Like, I work with a lot of kids from migrant and refugee backgrounds, so I don't think it would be very smart to study a text about life during war in Gaza.

I think having trigger warnings is a sensible idea.

Agreed.

[The Raven]

While trigger warnings may appear useful, it doesn't change the fact that students will have to study those texts often for weeks at a time. I think it would be rather absurd for a student to skip multiple weeks worth of English classes while they are studying a certain text. When it comes to religious sensitivities such as those raised in the article, it should be up to the school and its teachers to realise that certain texts might be offensive or inappropriate to their audience. However, to force the removal of certain texts that challenge their own view points is definitely a form of censorship as literature should be used to challenge students by presenting a broad array of ideas.
Some topics may be sensitive to a select few number of students who have experienced genuine trauma in which case the school and its teachers should be judicious in their text choices; there are many texts on the English and Literature text list that do not contain violence or other potentially disturbing content. To censor the entire text list, especially one where teachers don't have to choose violent  / explicit texts is unnecessary and contrary to the goals of studying Literature and English.

[geminii]

As my favourite famous figure says, 'facts don't care about your feelings.' You can't be shielded by negative emotions throughout high school and university and then be thrust into the outside world - imagine what kind of a shock that would be! Schools and universities were built solely for the purpose of preparing students for life after school, and although it is horrible, violence is something that does occur whether we like it or not.
By censoring these 'offensive' texts, we are shielding students from the reality of the situation. We are teaching them that closing their ears, yelling 'la la la la I can't hear you' and ignoring the problem is the best thing to do. Sorry to hurt your feelings but these problems won't disappear by you wishing they would. Rather I think it's important to have conversations about the violence depicted in texts and films studied in English class and propose solutions as to how to combat them or at least reduce their severity.

[vox nihili]

Somehow I missed this post.

Anyway, I basically agree with Wagner in the article:
I don't think texts should be ruled out on the basis of coarse language, violence, contentious issues, etc. But having some tact is the key here. Like, I work with a lot of kids from migrant and refugee backgrounds, so I don't think it would be very smart to study a text about life during war in Gaza.
Agreed.

What's the difference between tact and censorship though? Deciding against a book because you're worried that it will offend a certain group of people is, by definition, censorship. I'd argue that the fact that we have refugees in this community from places such as Gaza makes it even more important to discuss those issues and face the reality of the conditions they live in. Otherwise, if we decide to censor such texts, we go on oblivious to their suffering. That's kind of the point of books like that, to be honest. They exist to challenge people, to frighten people, to shock people. If we cut things because they're too shocking, too offensive...then where do we draw the line?

Monika Wagner's quote was all about semantics, not about substance. "Being thoughtful" is just a euphemism for censorship.

I think having trigger warnings is a sensible idea.

I agree with trigger warnings, because some books do deal with extremely challenging issues, but as long as it is dealt with sympathetically and healthily, rather than gratuitously or glorifying the issues, I think violence, child sexual abuse, suicide etc can be acceptable topics. They're topics that... need discussing? In a healthy way. Shying away from them doesn't help.

Trigger warnings are a funny one in many respects, because their use has become so divisive. Kind've seems to be that if you're left wing, you love 'em, and right wing they're the worst thing in the world. I recently read something (can't find it unfortunately) by someone who was very much left-wing who despised their insistence that trigger warnings were good, basically because they are kind of a pain in the arse and there's actually no evidence that they do anything to help people avoid harm. Personally, I'm pretty convinced by this. Why should we go to the effort of putting in trigger warnings, when we have no evidence about their benefits, or indeed their harms?

[geminii]

Trigger warnings are a funny one in many respects, because their use has become so divisive. Kind've seems to be that if you're left wing, you love 'em, and right wing they're the worst thing in the world. I recently read something (can't find it unfortunately) by someone who was very much left-wing who despised their insistence that trigger warnings were good, basically because they are kind of a pain in the arse and there's actually no evidence that they do anything to help people avoid harm. Personally, I'm pretty convinced by this. Why should we go to the effort of putting in trigger warnings, when we have no evidence about their benefits, or indeed their harms?

Exactly, I'm more right wing and I think trigger warnings are ridiculous. Wait until you get out into the real world and no one cares whether you're offended or not!

[Coffee]

What's the difference between tact and censorship though? Deciding against a book because you're worried that it will offend a certain group of people is, by definition, censorship.

I never said we shouldn't study texts because they might be offensive. What I am saying is that if you have a class of kids, a large majority of which are from refugee backgrounds, then you do need to be tactful about which texts to study. A lot of refugees suffer from mental illness as a result of fleeing war torn countries and witnessing violent deaths and terrorist attacks. In this case, I don't think its smart to study texts that draw exactly on these themes and experiences in great detail.

I'd argue that the fact that we have refugees in this community from places such as Gaza makes it even more important to discuss those issues and face the reality of the conditions they live in. Otherwise, if we decide to censor such texts, we go on oblivious to their suffering. That's kind of the point of books like that, to be honest. They exist to challenge people, to frighten people, to shock people.

I completely agree with all of this and I never suggested otherwise. The key here is, know your audience. This shouldn't be a problem for most schools, but I do work in a school with a large portion of kids from refugee backgrounds, and I don't think its necessary, or very sensible, to read texts about the very issues they have escaped.

[brenden]

Exactly, I'm more right wing and I think trigger warnings are ridiculous. Wait until you get out into the real world and no one cares whether you're offended or not!

What is the real world? Are you speaking from experience in it?

Trigger warnings... I'm a big on being understanding re: mental health and personally, I don't understand them and can't empathise because there's nothing for me to be triggered by. That being said, isn't complaining about it and getting offended by their presence just, stupid?
 
If, as a lecturer, I hVe to say "btw all, discussing abortion in this lecture, so TW"... even if it is the case that there's no evidence to their benefit... who cares? No one is worse off. Not one single person is worse off for that 5 seconds, but potentially, there is a person or a small collection of people who could be fantastically better off.

Doesn't seem like a political thing to me, just seems sort of basic like, who really gives a fuck if people are warned about triggers? If you're more upset by that than by the potential for people suffering from PTSD to have an episode, or people to otherwise feel severe discomfort that might have been lessened, then I question whether your motivation for arguing against them is coming from a rational place, or coming from a place of baseless grumpiness for the sake of it.

Edit: screening for swearing is absolute trash and disgusting puritanical bs

[Joseph41]

What is the real world? Are you speaking from experience in it?

Trigger warnings... I'm a big on being understanding re: mental health and personally, I don't understand them and can't empathise because there's nothing for me to be triggered by. That being said, isn't complaining about it and getting offended by their presence just, stupid?
 
If, as a lecturer, I hVe to say "btw all, discussing abortion in this lecture, so TW"... even if it is the case that there's no evidence to their benefit... who cares? No one is worse off. Not one single person is worse off for that 5 seconds, but potentially, there is a person or a small collection of people who could be fantastically better off.

Doesn't seem like a political thing to me, just seems sort of basic like, who really gives a fuck if people are warned about triggers? If you're more upset by that than by the potential for people suffering from PTSD to have an episode, or people to otherwise feel severe discomfort that might have been lessened, then I question whether your motivation for arguing against them is coming from a rational place, or coming from a place of baseless grumpiness for the sake of it.

Edit: screening for swearing is absolute trash and disgusting puritanical bs

On phone and will respond more extensively another time, but this pretty sums up my thoughts.

geminii, why is it precisely you're against trigger warnings?

[Quantum44]

Exactly, I'm more right wing and I think trigger warnings are ridiculous. Wait until you get out into the real world and no one cares whether you're offended or not!

I think this is a bit harsh. The issue is that complexity comes from the discussion of confronting issues in terms of literature. Without a morally ambiguous complication in the plot it's a bit difficult to sustain a discussion. I don't think censorship is required but I have no qualms with trigger warnings since, as brenden pointed out, they negatively affect no one and are only perceived as 'ridiculous' due to the permeation of alt-right memes into mainstream forms of communication.

[Joseph41]

To add to what I just said: if we can protect 16/17/18 year olds from considerable harm or trauma with very limited effort, why would we not do that?

[brenden]

Exactly, I'm more right wing and I think trigger warnings are ridiculous. Wait until you get out into the real world and no one cares whether you're offended or not!

Also, while I disagree with your opinion.. I admire and appreciate your willingness to offer it